It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of World Trade Center Building 7

page: 9
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:23 PM
link   
reply to post by v1rtu0s0
 



Hooper, are you an architect or engineer? Also who is considered a "laymen?" Please enlighten me, thanks.


I don't like to give out too much personal info, lets just say I am in the field of architecture and engineering and I am in a management position.

As for the definition of "laymen", I have my own but I was refering to the statement made by ANOK and his/her usage. I would think its anyone without specific working knowledge in a given field.




posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse?


So you can CLAIM something is a design flaw without even knowing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core and the distribution of steel down the building.



Excuse me, the core floors and the rest of the building's floors are two different structures. I thought you had known that already. The floors themselves were held up by light steel trusses, which were connected to the exterior columns and interior columns via welded on tabs called "seats". That is all that was holding up each floor: the floor truss seats and the floor truss. Nothing else. The horizontal 'beams" were located in the core, which was to support the stairwells and the shafts, and all other necessary equipment, including bathrooms and elevators. I'll bet you did not know that.




Talk about connections of the floors and never hear a number for how many there were. How could fire make them all come loose simultaneously? Oh, that isn't worth mentioning either.

psik


Well that is all in the blueprints. Who said that they all came loose simultaneously? Its BS like this that makes us not take you seriously, when you make such erroneous assumptions, and strawmen.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse?


So you can CLAIM something is a design flaw without even knowing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core and the distribution of steel down the building.

This debate isn't about physics and how reality works it is semantic and psychological bullsh#.

Talk about connections of the floors and never hear a number for how many there were. How could fire make them all come loose simultaneously? Oh, that isn't worth mentioning either.

psik


Sorry washer man but you are as bad as ANOK who said they failed at once once the collapse started the only thing that COULD support the floors was the CONNECTIONS which were the same from top to bottom on the twin towers except at the service floors.

Look at any construction photos wall or core steel was never very high above flooring system because they support each other. Tube in tube was great for floor space and the downfall of the towers.



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse?


So you can CLAIM something is a design flaw without even knowing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core and the distribution of steel down the building.

This debate isn't about physics and how reality works it is semantic and psychological bullsh#.

Talk about connections of the floors and never hear a number for how many there were. How could fire make them all come loose simultaneously? Oh, that isn't worth mentioning either.

psik


Sorry washer man but you are as bad as ANOK who said they failed at once once the collapse started the only thing that COULD support the floors was the CONNECTIONS which were the same from top to bottom on the twin towers except at the service floors.

Look at any construction photos wall or core steel was never very high above flooring system because they support each other. Tube in tube was great for floor space and the downfall of the towers.



great observation, but doesn't explain the vertical steel columns collapsing in on themselves at the same speed that the building was supposedly pancaking....floors can possibly pancake to an extent but steel columns can't pancake.....
edit on 24-8-2011 by patternfinder because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 03:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by GenRadek
the most critical design flaw of the WTC, and you say they had nothing to do with the collapse?


So you can CLAIM something is a design flaw without even knowing the layout of the horizontal beams in the core and the distribution of steel down the building.

This debate isn't about physics and how reality works it is semantic and psychological bullsh#.

Talk about connections of the floors and never hear a number for how many there were. How could fire make them all come loose simultaneously? Oh, that isn't worth mentioning either.

psik


Sorry washer man but you are as bad as ANOK who said they failed at once once the collapse started the only thing that COULD support the floors was the CONNECTIONS which were the same from top to bottom on the twin towers except at the service floors.

Look at any construction photos wall or core steel was never very high above flooring system because they support each other. Tube in tube was great for floor space and the downfall of the towers.


Someone else making CLAIMS and disappearing the horizontal beams in the core. The core was not a tube. The tube-in-tube is just misleading semantic jargon.

"Washer Man" -


You can name call all you want. But neither you nor anyone else has built a self supporting model that can be completely collapsed by its top 15%. What engineering school has even tried? The engineering schools don't even talk about having accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete. 9/11 is a scientific JOKE that the engineering schools are participating in.

But I see you still don't mention the NUMBER OF THOSE CONNECTIONS. Doesn't anybody know?


psik



posted on Aug, 24 2011 @ 04:43 PM
link   
the problem with an independant investigation is that it simply will not happen. the honest people in power that would want this, have been coerced or threatened with bodily harm. too many powerful people that benefitted from 9/11, will not allow an independant investigation to happen.
my 2 cents...a group of radical muslims were used as scapegoats, which fed our fear, and their own martyrdom.



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 02:15 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Will ask you again re your model was the compressive strength of your paper tubes in relation to the mass of your washers the same same as the ratio of the strentgh of the floor connections to the mass of the floors falling on them. IF NOT YOUR MODEL FAILS! WHY!

Well the washers are the floors or mass falling so the paper tubes represent what was resisting the mass falling!

APPLES with APPLES as they say , you and ANOK cant seem to get your head round the fact that what held the FLOORS up inside the tube was the little bits of angle iron just in case you forget what they look like here they are.



These bits of angle iron were the same from top to bottom except for the service floors.

I will also say again look at every construction picture you can of the towers going up the steel of the walls and the core was never allowed to be much higher than the floor system because they help to support each other.

As for your horizontal beams on the core YOU keep going on about them can YOU spot them on this drawing!

Look at detail B can you spot it?



The fact you made an attempt at a model is good but the whole point of a model is that it is an accurate representation sorry but yours is not.


OH as for the number of the connections I suggest one at each end of a truss might be the answer

edit on 25-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 10:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Will ask you again re your model was the compressive strength of your paper tubes in relation to the mass of your washers the same same as the ratio of the strentgh of the floor connections to the mass of the floors falling on them. IF NOT YOUR MODEL FAILS! WHY!


You keep talking about floor connections when my paper loops are comparable to the columns not the floor connections. My model is not a tube-in-tube structure. Let's see you build a tube-in-tube that can collapse.


What is stopping you? What is stopping any engineering school from doing it?

The building was not held up by floor connections. The floor connections connected the floor assemblies to the COLUMNS which held up the building.

Where have you said how many floor connections there were and where did you find the information. Propaganda physics can't look at the whole picture because that will not yield the approved stupid conclusion.

psik



posted on Aug, 25 2011 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


Will ask you again re your model was the compressive strength of your paper tubes in relation to the mass of your washers the same same as the ratio of the strentgh of the floor connections to the mass of the floors falling on them. IF NOT YOUR MODEL FAILS! WHY!


You keep talking about floor connections when my paper loops are comparable to the columns not the floor connections. My model is not a tube-in-tube structure. Let's see you build a tube-in-tube that can collapse.


What is stopping you? What is stopping any engineering school from doing it?

The building was not held up by floor connections. The floor connections connected the floor assemblies to the COLUMNS which held up the building.

Where have you said how many floor connections there were and where did you find the information. Propaganda physics can't look at the whole picture because that will not yield the approved stupid conclusion.

psik


If the tubes are the columns then that makes your model worse so what exactly do the washers represent?
Suggest you look up slim column buckling then.

en.m.wikipedia.org...




In practice, buckling is characterized by a sudden failure of a structural member subjected to high compressive stress,where the actual compressive stress at the point of failure is less than the ultimate compressive stresses that the material is capable of withstanding


That's part of the reason steel work was never high above floor system during construction! !!!

Stability was compromised if the floors were not present.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 12:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
If the tubes are the columns then that makes your model worse so what exactly do the washers represent?
Suggest you look up slim column buckling then.


You don't seem to comprehend what a PHYSICS MODEL is.

Modeling the physics and modeling the SHAPE of something are not quite the same thing. Most models are designed to LOOK LIKE the thing that is being modeled. A physics model is intended to analyze behavior.

A true tube-in-tube physics model would be very expensive and difficult to build. I bet it would cost thousands of dollars and take hundreds of hours to build.

The washers in my model are just MASS. They are not intended to represent FLOORS. The mass of floor assemblies in the WTC did not increase down the building.

Skyscrapers have mass which must be supported. In a gravitational collapse mass falling from above would have to accelerate stationary mass below and that mass would have to have supports strong enough to hold it. So my paper loops can't be functionally equivalent to anything other than the columns.

A house of cards would not be similar to my model or a building because they do not have a significant amount of mass to be supported and that card stock is stronger than my paper loops and is not damaged in a collapse. My model has the weight of 17 decks of cards. No significant energy of falling mass is absorbed if cards are not damaged. The physics profession has made a joke of itself by not coming up with any kind of physical model that sustains damage in TEN YEARS.

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:38 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You dont seem to understand the physics FULL STOP.

Care to show us how many columns were crushed flat like your paper tubes?

You have a look at the videos column trees fell or were lying on the ground or some were left standing.

Just one example



Obviously the base of a tower CRUSHED NO!

Your logic is as flawed as your model!

Oh and glad you have realised this at long last

A true tube-in-tube physics model would be very expensive and difficult to build. I bet it would cost thousands of dollars and take hundreds of hours to build.

edit on 26-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)

edit on 26-8-2011 by wmd_2008 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by wmd_2008
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 


You dont seem to understand the physics FULL STOP.

Care to show us how many colums were crushed flat like your paper tubes?


My model has fewer than 100 parts. The paper loops could not move sideways like columns and there are no horizontal beams in my model. Expecting columns to be crushed flat is idiotic. But bending and dislocating steel would require energy which is what crushing loops required.

Where is your model that can completely collapse?

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:54 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



Where is your model that can completely collapse?


Actually, its your model, just take the big freakin' broomhandle out the middle as that element has no basis in physics or architecture, then drop your washers and paper loops and see if the stack remains standing or falls down and apart like the twin towers. Done.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 

Where is your model that can completely collapse?
Actually, its your model, just take the big freakin' broomhandle out the middle as that element has no basis in physics or architecture, then drop your washers and paper loops and see if the stack remains standing or falls down and apart like the twin towers. Done.


The dowel does not participate in the collapse. Without the dowel the stack is so weak it cannot even stay up straight.

But that raises the question of why the tilted top portion of the south tower did not fall down the side?

9/11 BELIEVERS operate on backwards physics. They BELIEVE the conclusion and then rationalize backwards to justify the conclusion. That is why they talk about floor connections that were the same all of the way down the building and not columns that had to get stronger and heavier down the building. They do not look at the physics and explain how it could move forward in time and come to that result. Where was the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower? Where have physicists discussed that in TEN YEARS?

Where was the center of rotation?

What was the moment of inertia?

My model is so weak that as soon as it tilts to one side the lower paper loops are crushed on that side and the whole thing falls sideways. So the question is with it being SO WEAK why can't it collapse straight down with two drops from the top?

The physics profession needs to avoid 9/11 and not try to explain it because it would mean they would have to admit that they should have said planes could not do it in 2002. So they don't want to discuss the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:49 AM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The dowel does not participate in the collapse. Without the dowel the stack is so weak it cannot even stay up straight.

So your own model cannot do the one thing that you insist all buildings must do and hold itself up. That's really pathetic.

But that raises the question of why the tilted top portion of the south tower did not fall down the side?

No it doesn't. Everyone else seems to understand this simple bit of daycare level physics, why can't you?

9/11 BELIEVERS operate on backwards physics. They BELIEVE the conclusion and then rationalize backwards to justify the conclusion.

You mean they make an observation and then consider hypothesis? How ass-backwards! Please tell them correct way - start with your conclusion and then go looking for facts that support it!

That is why they talk about floor connections that were the same all of the way down the building and not columns that had to get stronger and heavier down the building.

No that's beacuse they're not trying to prove a rhetorical construction, i.e. the building was "crsuhed" but instead are actually trying to describe what happened - the building connections were challenged beyond their capacity and failed.

They do not look at the physics and explain how it could move forward in time and come to that result. Where was the center of mass of the top 29 stories of the south tower? Where have physicists discussed that in TEN YEARS?

What did they forget to ask you to the meetings?

Where was the center of rotation?

Point A

What was the moment of inertia?

Point B

My model is so weak that as soon as it tilts to one side the lower paper loops are crushed on that side and the whole thing falls sideways. So the question is with it being SO WEAK why can't it collapse straight down with two drops from the top?

Bcause your irrelevant model is nothing but a collection of two types of monolithic obejcts stacked on top of each other.

The physics profession needs to avoid 9/11....

Because it is a settled mattrer among professionals.

....and not try to explain it because it would mean they would have to admit that they should have said planes could not do it in 2002.

Or they would have to admit that they have nothing else better to do than to spend time trying to determine if water is wet.

So they don't want to discuss the tons of steel and tons of concrete that were on every level.

Don't need that info to reach a conclusion, or so I've been told.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 10:51 AM
link   
reply to post by hooper
 


Pathetic is your lack of understanding about the issue at hand, but Ill leave you to your ignorance to see if you figure it out, good luck.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 01:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The dowel does not participate in the collapse. Without the dowel the stack is so weak it cannot even stay up straight.

So your own model cannot do the one thing that you insist all buildings must do and hold itself up. That's really pathetic.


But even though it cannot do what real buildings have to do. It also did not do what YOU CLAIM the Twin Towers are supposed to have done.

Collapse straight down destroying itself with its own weight.

None of our engineering schools that charge $100,000 for four years of education have built a model that can do it either. I haven't heard of any school saying it would even try. In fact most of our engineering schools seem to be very quiet on the subject of 9/11. Now why is that?

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But even though it cannot do what real buildings have to do. It also did not do what YOU CLAIM the Twin Towers are supposed to have done.
Collapse straight down destroying itself with its own weight.


So you admit the big broomhandle in the middle makes your model representative of, well, a bunch of paper loops and metal washers impaled on a broomhandle. Again, tell you what - take out the broomhandle and drop the washers and loops on the stacked up washers and loops on the floor and tell me if it doesn't just so happen to look a lot like what happen on 9/11.



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 03:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



But even though it cannot do what real buildings have to do. It also did not do what YOU CLAIM the Twin Towers are supposed to have done.
Collapse straight down destroying itself with its own weight.


So you admit the big broomhandle in the middle makes your model representative of, well, a bunch of paper loops and metal washers impaled on a broomhandle. Again, tell you what - take out the broomhandle and drop the washers and loops on the stacked up washers and loops on the floor and tell me if it doesn't just so happen to look a lot like what happen on 9/11.


My model is a physics demonstration of a gravitational collapse.

That is what lots of people CLAIM happened to WTC 1 & 2. But those same people don't want accurate data on the distributions of steel and concrete in the towers. Those same people do not explain why the top of the south tower did not fall down the side. Those same people do not explain how the bottom of the top 29 stories moved sideways 20 feet just before the collapse.

So I provide a demonstration of why a self supporting structure should not be able to crush itself with its own weight so YOU have a problem with it and need to come up with BS to belittle it. The towers had to withstand 100 mph winds also. My model couldn't withstand that either even with the dowel.

So where is the engineering school that has made any kind of model that can completely collapse?

The schools don't want to talk about the problem anymore. They need for everybody to shut up and BELIEVE the TRUE 9/11 RELIGION.

So supposedly for the rest of eternity we are supposed to have HISTORY based on IMPOSSIBLE PHYSICS. This just goes to show that Liberal Arts teachers are IDIOTS. But the physics teachers have allowed themselves to be dragged down that road.

psik



posted on Aug, 26 2011 @ 07:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by psikeyhackr

Originally posted by hooper
reply to post by psikeyhackr
 



The dowel does not participate in the collapse. Without the dowel the stack is so weak it cannot even stay up straight.

So your own model cannot do the one thing that you insist all buildings must do and hold itself up. That's really pathetic.


But even though it cannot do what real buildings have to do. It also did not do what YOU CLAIM the Twin Towers are supposed to have done.

Collapse straight down destroying itself with its own weight.

None of our engineering schools that charge $100,000 for four years of education have built a model that can do it either. I haven't heard of any school saying it would even try. In fact most of our engineering schools seem to be very quiet on the subject of 9/11. Now why is that?

psik


The problem is they didn't collapse the way you described but YOU can't see that.

Lets look at the collapse the North tower around 15 floors fell and this has been shown on other threads generates a massive dynamic load the bulk of the falling mass falls on the floor slab those connections fail that then causes the walls to fail and the process repeats.

I have asked you and others with your belief to find a picture during construction that shows wall or core columns much higher than the floor decking you won't because they work with each other to provide stability.

The floors fail and the walls / core fail, columns don't get crushed that's why you have large sections of column trees that are still intact some even still standing see previous picture posted.

Also posted before look at slim column buckling another reason column won't get crushed and why your model doesn't represent what happens to the wall or core columns.



new topics

top topics



 
21
<< 6  7  8    10  11  12 >>

log in

join